Key Takeaways
- • The University of Texas Investment Management Co. is restructuring hedge fund compensation using a "1-or-30" fee model that charges either a 1% management fee or 30% of performance—whichever is higher—to align manager incentives with investor returns.
- • Approximately 70% of the University of Texas endowment's hedge fund assets now operate under fee structures aligned with this philosophy, demonstrating broad industry adoption of the new compensation framework.
- • Carlson Capital was the first hedge fund to agree to the revised fee structure, establishing a precedent for other managers to follow suit.
- • The initiative mirrors a similar effort launched by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS), which has applied revised fee models to roughly two-thirds of its hedge fund portfolio, indicating a coordinated movement among major Texas institutional investors.
- • The fee restructuring effort represents a broader institutional push to eliminate "skill-less" management fees and tie compensation more directly to performance, reducing costs for endowments while maintaining manager alignment with investor interests.
Summary
The University of Texas Investment Management Co. has spearheaded a coordinated effort to reform hedge fund fee structures, implementing a "1-or-30" compensation model designed to create more equitable arrangements between institutional investors and fund managers. Under this framework, managers charge either a 1% management fee or 30% of performance gains—whichever generates higher compensation—rather than the traditional 2-and-20 structure (2% management fee and 20% of profits) that has dominated the hedge fund industry.
This initiative follows a similar campaign launched by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS), which began pushing for fee restructuring approximately one year prior to the University of Texas effort. According to TRS Chief Investment Officer Jase Auby, the new fee models now apply to roughly two-thirds of the pension system's hedge fund allocations, demonstrating material traction with fund managers. The University of Texas endowment has achieved comparable results, with approximately 70% of its hedge fund assets now operating under fee structures aligned with this philosophy.
Carlson Capital distinguished itself as the first major hedge fund to voluntarily adopt the revised compensation model, establishing important precedent for the broader industry. This early adoption appears to have catalyzed broader compliance, with hedge fund managers recognizing both the legitimacy of the institutional critique and the competitive necessity of accommodating large allocators' fee demands.
The restructuring reflects institutional investors' conviction that traditional hedge fund fee arrangements fail to distinguish between genuine alpha generation and passive market exposure. By tying base compensation to a lower threshold (1% management fee) while preserving upside participation (30% of performance), the model incentivizes managers to deliver genuine outperformance rather than collecting fees for beta-equivalent returns. This shift carries implications for hedge fund business models and could pressure smaller, lower-conviction managers to demonstrate superior alpha generation or risk capital outflows to competitors offering more favorable fee arrangements.
This initiative follows a similar campaign launched by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS), which began pushing for fee restructuring approximately one year prior to the University of Texas effort. According to TRS Chief Investment Officer Jase Auby, the new fee models now apply to roughly two-thirds of the pension system's hedge fund allocations, demonstrating material traction with fund managers. The University of Texas endowment has achieved comparable results, with approximately 70% of its hedge fund assets now operating under fee structures aligned with this philosophy.
Carlson Capital distinguished itself as the first major hedge fund to voluntarily adopt the revised compensation model, establishing important precedent for the broader industry. This early adoption appears to have catalyzed broader compliance, with hedge fund managers recognizing both the legitimacy of the institutional critique and the competitive necessity of accommodating large allocators' fee demands.
The restructuring reflects institutional investors' conviction that traditional hedge fund fee arrangements fail to distinguish between genuine alpha generation and passive market exposure. By tying base compensation to a lower threshold (1% management fee) while preserving upside participation (30% of performance), the model incentivizes managers to deliver genuine outperformance rather than collecting fees for beta-equivalent returns. This shift carries implications for hedge fund business models and could pressure smaller, lower-conviction managers to demonstrate superior alpha generation or risk capital outflows to competitors offering more favorable fee arrangements.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.